Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—In rising to summarise the contributions to this debate, I want to proceed on three fronts: firstly, to address the arguments made by speakers on both sides of the House; secondly, to deal with the content of the Non-Proliferation Legislation Amendment Bill 2006; and, thirdly, to deal with the process and those who have contributed to the bill.

In dealing with the contributions made by speakers on both sides of the House, I hope that I am characterising their contributions correctly and accurately by grouping them into three main themes. The first of these themes was support for the general provisions of the Non-Proliferation Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. I believe that we have had universal support from all speakers, representing strong and unified support within the parliament for the general notion of protection of the physical materials and strengthening of penalties for any serious offences in relation to nuclear materials within Australia or arising from Australian activities.

The second theme of debate today has been around a general desire for a strong non-proliferation regime. I know from my time in a previous life before being a member of this place that I was engaged with and saw the work of the foreign minister, the Prime Minister, the then defence minister and others in the development and establishment of the comprehensive test ban treaty. Australia was one of the driving forces behind that, and it has been one of the driving forces in maintaining the integrity of and further strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So those are two fundamental pillars of the international non-proliferation system. Their work and their standing as foundation treaties are critical. We are proud of the role that we have played and are committed to future work on that front. But there is strong and united support within the House on those points.

The third of the themes raised for debate within this House has been the division which we have seen on the opposition side over the future of uranium mining in Australia. As I understand it, we saw from the member for Batman clear support for extension and expansion of uranium mining and the uranium industry within Australia, and that of course is somewhat at odds with the position presented by the member for Lingiari. So it is representative of a debate currently going on within the opposition but one which I think is a settled debate, even though it is likely that there will be some light and fury over the coming months. But it does highlight the curious position of, on the one hand, expanding uranium mining and, on the other, opposing nuclear energy, because all uranium mined from Australia is used for one purpose.

See this speech in context